Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Well i got hit in the front left hand side at about 90kmph from a car coming straight at me. Felt little bit worse then a nice bumper-cars hit.... You could drive alot worse in the wagon department.

does any1 no the safety star rating 4 97 RS4 please

planning to crash?

or is there a specific reason?

I really don't have much time for a safety rating based on the number of airbags after you crash rather than the car's ability to dodge 99% of possible incidents

planning to crash?

or is there a specific reason?

I really don't have much time for a safety rating based on the number of airbags after you crash rather than the car's ability to dodge 99% of possible incidents

that and i don't know if there's been a crash in a stag where the airbags have deployed? i haven't been around that long though, so i could be wrong.

I have seen a five star rating - will have to look it up to see who issued the rating. I wrote off an earlier S1 RS4T by leaving the State highway at about 100km/hr flying across a culvert and hitting the other side ( Lack of sleep - I have learned my lesson and don't plan on a repeat). Front was wrecked LH turret pushed back and roof buckled - windscreen shattered but sayed intact (no flying glass) - doors stayed shut but could all be opened post crash. Seatbelts have pre-tensioners and airbags deployed. Suffered a bit of a headache and a scratch on my left elbow. Survivability is affected not only by features that give rise to a 5 star rating but also mass is a factor (esp in head on) so in this case 1800kg is a plus.

Same here! I have NFI about "star" ratings but having had the experience of headbutting a wrx hard enough to write an S1 off, and the fact that my entire family got out and walked away without a scratch, I would say they are excellent. A hell of a lot better than most cars of a comparable size etc IMO

DSCI0018.jpg

Stagea does not seem to appear in any of the Australian or NZ ratings. The one I saw was for 2001 (don't know if that's C34 or M35) and it was 5 stars out of 6 JNCAP crash tests so maybe someone who can read Japanese can look it up on a Japanese website.

If you believe the youtube clips, the stagea is 5 star by JNCAP ratings (which is out of 6). This is for both C34 and M35.

In particular, it did mention that the passenger safety rating was 5 star while the driver rating was only 4 star. not sure why this is as no reason was given. Pretty sure I found it on youtube but I cant access that from work so I cant look it up right now.

The youtube clips I'm referring to are actual crash test videos showing the stagea crashing 3 ways (front, side & front corner).

In any case they rate VERY well compared to other cars (especially wagons) of equivalent year.

I believe the only thing to let them down ratings-wise is the lack of VDC/ASC, which wasn't around/common at the time these cars were first built anyway.

Back a few years Rob?? wrote his S1 of. The pics are in here somewhere. The front completely broke off at the A pillar and the motor and bits spread all over. Funny, no broken windows. I got his N/A grille and rear bar.

From memory he hit the pole at VERY high speed and he and his mate got out and walked home.

I think Stags must be very safe.

Back a few years Rob?? wrote his S1 of. The pics are in here somewhere. The front completely broke off at the A pillar and the motor and bits spread all over. Funny, no broken windows. I got his N/A grille and rear bar.

From memory he hit the pole at VERY high speed and he and his mate got out and walked home.

I think Stags must be very safe.

I remember this one, decent stack. I have a good story - but a picture tells a 1000 words. I'll try and dig up some pictures of my first stag crumpled, on its side in a ditch with a twisted chassis and snapped front axle from sheared rusty hub bolts. lol. Yeah I can vouch for their 5 star safety, thats why i bought another one.

Edited by dirtyRS4
It was qikstagea

Im sure there were pictures of this smash on the forum. KiwiRS4T had some pics of his aswell?

Should start a dedicated thred to see wot the stag can survive.

Edited by dirtyRS4
  • 2 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Latest Posts

    • Yeah i found that alot of parts can be wrong or "very" hard to get the real right one. I already bought some brakes years ago on me "old" GT calipers and they were wrong too 😄  I told them too. Even send them pictures...but they said "EBC catalogue has them on my car... So i dont know what their answer will be. I call monday them and let them know that they are really not on my car. If they were they would be already on a car...
    • Welcome to Skyline ownership. Yes, it is entirely possible parts websites get things wrong. There's a whole world of inaccuracies out there when it comes to R34 stuff (and probably 33 and 32). Lots of things that are 'just bolt on, entirely interchangable' aren't. Even between S1 and S2 R34's. Yes they have a GTT item supposedly being 296mm. This is incorrect. I would call whoever you got them from and return them and let them know the GTT actually uses 310mm rotors. Depending on where you got them from your experience and success will obviously vary.
    • Hi...a bit a "development" on the brakes. I spoke to the guys where i get brakes from...and they are saying that 296mm EBC are for R34 GT-T. I then went to their site: https://www.ebcbrakes.com/vehicle/uk-row/NISSAN/Skyline (R34)/ and search for my car(R34 GT 1998 - it has GTT brakes) and it show me this USR1229 number and they are rly 296mm rotors... So now iam rly confused... The rotors i have now on the car are 310mm asi shown... So where is the problem? Does the whole EBC got it wrong or my calipers are just...idk know what?  
    • Oh What the hell, I used to get a "are you sure you want to reply, this thread is XX months old" message. Maybe a software update remove that. My bad.
    • This is a recipe for disaster* Note: Disaster is relative. The thing that often gets lost in threads like this is what is considered acceptable poke and compromise between what one person considers 'good' looks and what someone else does. The quoted specs would sit absurdly outside the guards with the spacers mentioned and need  REALLY thin tyres and a LOT of camber AND rolling the guards to fit. Some people love this. Some people consider this a ruined car. One thing is for certain though, rolling the guards is pretty much mandatory for any 'good' fitment (of either variety). It is often the difference between any fitment remotely close to the guards. "Not to mention the rears were like a mm from hitting the coilovers." I have a question though - This spec is VERY close to what I was planning to buy relative to the inboard suspension - I have an offset measuring tool on the way to confirm it. When you say "like a mm" do you mean literally 1mm? Or 2mm? Cause that's enough clearance for me in the rear :p I actually found the more limiting factor ISNT the coilover but the actual suspension arms. Did you take a look at how close those were?
×
×
  • Create New...